【Flyer杀G】小组-6.24作业 A 79, by Sean

柏拉图的世界UID: 2581296

79. The following appeared in a magazine for the trucking industry."The Longhaul trucking company was concerned that its annual accident rate (the number of accidents per mile driven) was too high. It granted a significant pay increase to its drivers and increased its training standards. It also put strict limits on the number of hours per week each driver could drive. The following year, its trucks were involved in half the number of accidents as before the changes were implemented. A survey of other trucking companies found that the highest-paid drivers were the least likely to have had an accident. Therefore, trucking companies wishing to reduce their accident rate can do so simply by raising their drivers' pay and limiting the overall number of hours they drive."
难度：★★★

In view of Longhaul trucking company’s success in diminishing annual accident rate after actions like increasing pay to drivers and training standards, and putting strict limits to driving time, the author suggest that other companies can merely raise drivers’ pay and limit overall number of hours they drive for the purpose to prevent accidents. Besides, he author cites a survey as support demonstrating that the more a driver earns, the less likely he/she have an accident. As I see it, the author arbitrarily put causal chains between Longhaul trucking company’s moves and accidental decrease. Paradox compromises the relation of his/her suggestion and the anticipate of less mishap.

Let us firstly cast scrutiny at the case in Longhaul trucking company. As we know, accidents have to do with the road condition badly. Since the author says no word on how well or poor the roads and concerning constructions, which the trucks undergo, it is fair enough for us to suppose that the places where Longhaul trucking company’s vehicles usually run  are ameliorated at the same time when it enforce their new rules. If this is true, hardly can we accept the assertion that it is the rules rather than better driving conditions that protects drivers from tragedy.

There are parallels with road conditions that the author didn’t mention the on-road hours of drivers before and after the company’s changes. Probably, hours spent on road by drivers are just half of before, due to economic recession or something. Apparently, the less time drivers are on road, the less possible they are in accidents, and this fact downplays the effectiveness of new rules. Furthermore, if the actual driving time of most drivers is less than the limitation, the rules turned out to be even more irrelative with feat in decimating accidents.

Moreover, the assumption that higher pay may reduce accidents still severely lack warranty, even if it is the facial case demonstrated by the survey. People with better roadcraft would naturally earn more money form company, because they can save delivery time, they can handle more road conditions, and, what’s more critical, they can prevent traffic accidents more effectively. In reviewing the causal relationship, it is not difficult to found a great

candygegeUID: 2792059

In view of Longhaul trucking company’s success in diminishing annual accident rate after actions like increasing pay to drivers and training standards, and putting strict limits to driving time, the author suggest(suggests) that other companies can merely raise drivers’ pay and limit overall number of hours they drive for the purpose to prevent accidents. Besides, he(the) author cites a survey as support
demonstrating(a support to demonstrate) that the more a driver earns, the less likely he/she have(has) an accident. As I see it(as far as I see), the author arbitrarily put causal chains between Longhaul trucking company’s moves and accidental decrease(这里要表达的意思是意外事故减少偶然性还是意外事故的减少呢？感觉accidental decrease表达的是前者). Paradox compromises the relation of his/her suggestion and the anticipate of less mishap(less mishap损害的并不是建议与减少灾害期望间的关系，而是建议与更少灾害间的关系).

Let us firstly cast scrutiny at the case of Longhaul trucking company. As we know, accidents have to do with the road condition badly. Since the author says no word on how well or poor the roads and concerning constructions, which the trucks undergo, it is fair enough for us to suppose that the places Longhaul trucking company’s vehicles (^on) are ameliorated at the same time when it enforce their new rules. If this is true, hardly can we accept the assertion that it is the rules rather than better driving conditions that protect drivers from tragedy.
(考虑了路况的可能影响)

There are parallels with road conditions that the author didn’t mention the on-road hours of drivers before and after the company’s changes. Probably, hours spent on road by drivers are just half of before, due to economic recession or something. Apparently, the less time drivers are on road, the less possible they are in accidents, and this fact downplays the effectiveness of new rules. Furthermore, if the actual driving time of most drivers is less than the limitation, the rules turned out to be even more irrelative with feat in decimating accidents.（"it also put strict limits on the number of hours per week each driver could drive" 已经提到了on-road hours 对事故减少的影响。一般，如果之前的行驶时间就低于限制的话，公司也就没有必要设定严格的限制了。这里是否可以从另一个角度来阐述？比如，时间减少了，但是不能确定究竟是时间限制，还是因为休息时间增多等因素影响了结果。）

Moreover, the assumption that higher pay may reduce accidents still severely lack warranty, even if it is the facial case demonstrated by the survey. People with better roadcraft would naturally earn more money form company, because they can save delivery time, they can handle more road conditions, and, what’s more critical, they can prevent traffic accidents more effectively. In reviewing the causal relationship, it is not difficult to found a great possibility between the fact that one driver gains more money and the fact that he/she has less accident, that the former is the result of the latter, rather than reason. In other words, if we elevate a poor driver’s pay, his skills won’t elevate in the same way. （这段不错）

In the final analysis on the author’s propose, we find his negligence and oversimplification as well. A conspicuous negligence is that he/she totally throw away the action to put higher training standard as Longhaul trucking company did. He also neglect other feasible ways to save more driver and vehicles, like overhaul of automobiles, advocacy of safety senses, to name a few
(and so on). The oversimplification is his/her trial to simply extent actions in particular company to more ones. Even if actions in companies like Longhaul definitely keep accidents away, the query whether the same thing would happen in a different place and a different time calls for inspection. Simply put, at the time when a company introduce this set of regulations, rainstorm happens and lasts for quiet long, the roads are slippery. In this case, if the company keep their business going, greater number of traffic accidents would not be a surprise.

To sum up, changes in Longhual trucking company are not necessarily the reasons（the necessary reasons） for their simultaneous or latter success to diminish accidents, judging by the evidences and reasoning presented. Thus, the author’s suggestion is dubious, especially with the notice of his negligence and oversimplification.

整体感觉：
整篇文章结构清晰，句式多变。
从逻辑上来说，主要有两点，一是从正面驳斥了提高工资和限制时间；二是指出了观点中忽略的其他可能影响因素（路况，提高安全意识等）。
对于题目中survery的可信度没有进行攻击，另外，在指出忽略因素的时候存在一个问题，即这些举出的例子没有得到很好的证明，建议可以直接用题目中提到的已经验证过的方法“increase training standards”进行反驳，似乎会更有利。

柏拉图的世界UID: 2581296

2# candygege 谢谢拍文~
我发现自己文中的小错误还是蛮多的。
第一段那两个评注的意思我不是太明白，能详细解释一下么？

candygegeUID: 2792059

3# 柏拉图的世界
1、你使用了accidental decrease。我觉得有歧义，表达的是意外事故的偶然性减少，而你本来想要表达的可能是意外事故的减少，感觉是ACCIDENTAL本意是形容词，表偶然哈~
2、你使用了the anticipate of less mishap，我觉得使用less mishap更合适，并不是建议与减少灾害期望间的关系，而是建议与更少灾害间的关系。

=============
不知道有没有说清楚哈。。